Creighton Model FertilityCare System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Creighton Model / FertilityCare
Background
TypeBehavioral
First use1980
Failure rates (first year)
Perfect use0.5%[1]
Typical use3.2%[1]
Usage
ReversibilityImmediate
User remindersAccurate instruction & daily charting are key.
Clinic reviewNone
Advantages and disadvantages
STI protectionNo
Period advantagesPrediction
Weight gainNo
BenefitsLow direct cost;
no side effects;
in accord with Catholic teachings;
may be used to aid pregnancy achievement

The Creighton Model FertilityCare System (Creighton Model, FertilityCare, CrMS) is a form of natural family planning which involves identifying the fertile period during a woman's menstrual cycle. The Creighton Model was developed by Thomas Hilgers, the founder and director of the Pope Paul VI Institute. This model, like the Billings ovulation method, is based on observations of cervical mucus to track fertility. Creighton can be used for both avoiding pregnancy and achieving pregnancy.

Conceptual basis[edit]

Hilgers describes the Creighton Model as being based on "a standardized modification of the Billings ovulation method", which was developed by John and Evelyn Billings in the 1960s.[2] The Billingses issued a paper refuting the claim that the CrMS represents a standardization of the BOM. According to the Billingses said that those concepts are two different methods and should not be seen as interchangeable.[3]

Effectiveness[edit]

For avoiding pregnancy, the perfect-use failure rate of Creighton was 0.5%, which means that for each year that 1,000 couples using this method perfectly, that there are 5 unintended pregnancies. The typical-use failure rate, representing the fraction of couples using this method that actually had an unintended pregnancy, is reported as 3.2%.[1][4]

For achieving pregnancy, no large clinical trials have been performed comparing ART and NaProTechnology. Only observational one-arm studies have been published so far.[5][6] In the larger of these two studies, 75% of couples trying to conceive received additional hormonal stimulation such as clomiphene.[5]

However, most of those researches are self-reported. According to David Adamson, a clinical professor at Stanford University and the former president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, there is not any evidence that this system is better for achieving pregnancy than simply having sex regularly.[7]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Hilgers, TW; Stanford, JB (1998). "Creighton Model NaProEducation Technology for avoiding pregnancy. Use effectiveness". The Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 43 (6): 495–502. PMID 9653695.
  2. ^ Creighton Model
  3. ^ Some Clarifications Concerning NaProTECHNOLOGY and the Billings Ovulation Method Archived 2007-09-28 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ^ http://www.jabfm.org/content/22/2/147.long
  5. ^ a b Stanford, J. B.; Parnell, T. A.; Boyle, P. C. (2008). "Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice". The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 21 (5): 375–84. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2008.05.070239. PMID 18772291.
  6. ^ Tham, Elizabeth; Schliep, Karen; Stanford, Joseph (2012). "Natural procreative technology for infertility and recurrent miscarriage: outcomes in a Canadian family practice". Canadian Family Physician. 58 (5): e267–74. PMC 3352813. PMID 22734170.
  7. ^ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/07/inside-the-strange-heartbreaking-relentless-quest-for-a-natural-fertility-treatment/

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]